Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

isurg

  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Man Charged for Wiping Phone Before CBP Could Search It

Man Charged for Wiping Phone Before CBP Could Search It

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
news
12 Posts 7 Posters 1 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • W who@feddit.org

    Link Preview Image
    Man Charged for Wiping Phone Before CBP Could Search It

    The exact circumstances around the search are not known. But activist Samuel Tunick is charged with deleting data from a Google Pixel before CBP’s Tactical Terrorism Response Team could search it.

    favicon

    404 Media (web.archive.org)

    Link Preview Image
    Man Charged for Wiping Phone Before CBP Could Search It

    The exact circumstances around the search are not known. But activist Samuel Tunick is charged with deleting data from a Google Pixel before CBP’s Tactical Terrorism Response Team could search it.

    favicon

    404 Media (www.404media.co)

    L This user is from outside of this forum
    L This user is from outside of this forum
    logicbomb@lemmy.world
    wrote on last edited by
    #2

    We don't know the exact circumstances, but CBP stands for Customs and Border Protection.

    I've heard of Customs agents demanding people let them search phones without a warrant and without probable cause, and so foreigners can be refused entry. We probably all heard the story of it happening for a person who had a meme of JD Vance on his phone.

    But the article says that this guy is based out of Atlanta, so I'm guessing he's a US citizen. I'm not sure they can refuse entry to a US citizen based on this.

    Either way, you should never give permission to anybody to search your phone. Maybe you've broken a law that you didn't know was a law, and you've just handed the evidence over to the police. Or maybe you have evidence that can convict somebody else who didn't know they broke a law.

    I don't know what this means for people crossing the US border. Now is a bad time to enter the United States.

    F 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • L logicbomb@lemmy.world

      We don't know the exact circumstances, but CBP stands for Customs and Border Protection.

      I've heard of Customs agents demanding people let them search phones without a warrant and without probable cause, and so foreigners can be refused entry. We probably all heard the story of it happening for a person who had a meme of JD Vance on his phone.

      But the article says that this guy is based out of Atlanta, so I'm guessing he's a US citizen. I'm not sure they can refuse entry to a US citizen based on this.

      Either way, you should never give permission to anybody to search your phone. Maybe you've broken a law that you didn't know was a law, and you've just handed the evidence over to the police. Or maybe you have evidence that can convict somebody else who didn't know they broke a law.

      I don't know what this means for people crossing the US border. Now is a bad time to enter the United States.

      F This user is from outside of this forum
      F This user is from outside of this forum
      frongt@lemmy.zip
      wrote on last edited by
      #3

      Legally, they cannot refuse entry to a US Citizen. Legally.

      But just because someone is based in the US doesn't mean they're a citizen. And they don't need any justification to search someone, because airports and land within 100 miles of a border is a "constitution-free zone" (but not 100 miles from an airport, contrary to popular belief).

      C 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F frongt@lemmy.zip

        Legally, they cannot refuse entry to a US Citizen. Legally.

        But just because someone is based in the US doesn't mean they're a citizen. And they don't need any justification to search someone, because airports and land within 100 miles of a border is a "constitution-free zone" (but not 100 miles from an airport, contrary to popular belief).

        C This user is from outside of this forum
        C This user is from outside of this forum
        crystalmerchant@lemmy.world
        wrote on last edited by
        #4

        Lmao so now we're saying all of Southern California south of Newport Beach (85 mi from Tijuana) is a place where the constitution does not apply? New York west of Rochester? (80 mi from Niagara) Pretty much all of Alaska's tail thingy next to Canada? 😂

        P 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • W who@feddit.org

          Link Preview Image
          Man Charged for Wiping Phone Before CBP Could Search It

          The exact circumstances around the search are not known. But activist Samuel Tunick is charged with deleting data from a Google Pixel before CBP’s Tactical Terrorism Response Team could search it.

          favicon

          404 Media (web.archive.org)

          Link Preview Image
          Man Charged for Wiping Phone Before CBP Could Search It

          The exact circumstances around the search are not known. But activist Samuel Tunick is charged with deleting data from a Google Pixel before CBP’s Tactical Terrorism Response Team could search it.

          favicon

          404 Media (www.404media.co)

          P This user is from outside of this forum
          P This user is from outside of this forum
          partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          wrote on last edited by
          #5

          Details are weird here. The wiping occurred in Jan 2025. I found the indictment which was filed with the court on Nov 13th 2025 linked here

          We have almost no details of what happened in Jan 2025 except "Customs and Border Patrol Tactical Terrorism Response Team" was doing something with Tunick in January and Tunick "used a code" to wipe the phone. Then suddenly in November 2025 the US Government filed to have him arrested for that event.

          I'm not a legal scholar, but none of these details or timeline makes sense to me. Anyone else have any clue?

          B 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • C crystalmerchant@lemmy.world

            Lmao so now we're saying all of Southern California south of Newport Beach (85 mi from Tijuana) is a place where the constitution does not apply? New York west of Rochester? (80 mi from Niagara) Pretty much all of Alaska's tail thingy next to Canada? 😂

            P This user is from outside of this forum
            P This user is from outside of this forum
            partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            wrote on last edited by
            #6

            Its far worse than that. Anywhere that is within 80 miles of an international airport, they claim, is also inside their jurisdiction.

            "U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) jurisdiction at airports covers all international arrivals/departures as designated ports of entry, plus a 100-mile zone inland from borders and coasts for immigration/customs enforcement, meaning they can operate at large international airports like DEN or DFW and even domestic ones if near borders, stopping, questioning, and searching individuals/belongings for admissibility and contraband, though searches need consent or probable cause for internal searches, notes the ACLU. "

            source

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • P partial_accumen@lemmy.world

              Details are weird here. The wiping occurred in Jan 2025. I found the indictment which was filed with the court on Nov 13th 2025 linked here

              We have almost no details of what happened in Jan 2025 except "Customs and Border Patrol Tactical Terrorism Response Team" was doing something with Tunick in January and Tunick "used a code" to wipe the phone. Then suddenly in November 2025 the US Government filed to have him arrested for that event.

              I'm not a legal scholar, but none of these details or timeline makes sense to me. Anyone else have any clue?

              B This user is from outside of this forum
              B This user is from outside of this forum
              barneypiccolo@lemmy.today
              wrote on last edited by
              #7

              It's not complicated, it's Border Patrol doing their MAGA duty. The only thing we know about this case is what MAGA tells us, so it's almost all certainly a lie. Of course the details and timeline don't make sense, they are probably entirely fabricated.

              P 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • B barneypiccolo@lemmy.today

                It's not complicated, it's Border Patrol doing their MAGA duty. The only thing we know about this case is what MAGA tells us, so it's almost all certainly a lie. Of course the details and timeline don't make sense, they are probably entirely fabricated.

                P This user is from outside of this forum
                P This user is from outside of this forum
                partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                wrote on last edited by
                #8

                I don't disagree, but usually they at least try to present a semi-defensible argument. So far the only thing they elude to is "before or during a time when we were going to perform a search he wiped his own phone". If its "before" a search then what is even the basis for that being illegal for him to wipe is own property?

                B A 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • P partial_accumen@lemmy.world

                  I don't disagree, but usually they at least try to present a semi-defensible argument. So far the only thing they elude to is "before or during a time when we were going to perform a search he wiped his own phone". If its "before" a search then what is even the basis for that being illegal for him to wipe is own property?

                  B This user is from outside of this forum
                  B This user is from outside of this forum
                  barneypiccolo@lemmy.today
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #9

                  Yeah, but those tries are half-hearted, at best. The excuses will start falling by the wayside until the response is: "Mind yer own fucking business, but since you're so curious, who the fuck are YOU? Get over here!"

                  P 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • B barneypiccolo@lemmy.today

                    Yeah, but those tries are half-hearted, at best. The excuses will start falling by the wayside until the response is: "Mind yer own fucking business, but since you're so curious, who the fuck are YOU? Get over here!"

                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                    partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #10

                    who the fuck are YOU? Get over here!”

                    "Well, you certainly won't find out from my phone, because I've just wiped it"

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • P partial_accumen@lemmy.world

                      I don't disagree, but usually they at least try to present a semi-defensible argument. So far the only thing they elude to is "before or during a time when we were going to perform a search he wiped his own phone". If its "before" a search then what is even the basis for that being illegal for him to wipe is own property?

                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      aa5b@lemmy.world
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #11

                      I imagine they’re trying to charge him with destruction of evidence. I don’t know how that should go if this were actually a legal proceeding but would certainly hope it would require reasonable suspicion of a specific crime and a search warrant.

                      P 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • A aa5b@lemmy.world

                        I imagine they’re trying to charge him with destruction of evidence. I don’t know how that should go if this were actually a legal proceeding but would certainly hope it would require reasonable suspicion of a specific crime and a search warrant.

                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                        partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #12

                        Can you be charged with destruction of evidence before you've even been charged with a crime?

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups